It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Let's Even The Playing Field in This Hot Debate

page: 2
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 12 2010 @ 12:13 AM
link   
That is the problem.
You see "man" was not created from "*inorganic matter*". The bible is missing about 3.8 billion years of evolution.

Unless you are saying Adam and Eve were ... far from being human ?




posted on May, 12 2010 @ 12:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by nophun
That is the problem.
You see "man" was not created from "*inorganic matter*". The bible is missing about 3.8 billion years of evolution.

Unless you are saying Adam and Eve were ... far from being human ?


Then what was "man" created from? Are you implying a Creator as opposed to chance by naturalistic means?



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by novastrike81

Then what was "man" created from? Are you implying a Creator as opposed to chance by naturalistic means?


Yes of course I am a strong follower of Olodumare of the Yoruba religion.



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 12:46 AM
link   
reply to post by nophun
 


I mis-spoke thanks for pointing that out. What I meant was "non-living". And after that I seem to have lost you as I pointed out it IS possible to speak in broad terms short on details you know. Rather like saying "I painted a picture.".



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 02:00 PM
link   


Stereologist =
I think that I would dispute that evolution is god. Evolution does not describe the origins of life. It does not describe the universe. Evolution and the theories as to why it happened describe the diversity of life. Due to its limited scope I'd hardly claim it fits definition "a". Nor would I attribute definition "b" to evolution since evolution is not a directed process. It is an observed result. Evolution is not a force. Evolution does not tend towards complexity.


Evolution = a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state
Source = www.merriam-webster.com...

You are wrong!



PieKeeper
There is no debate: Evolution occurs, end of story.

Go ahead and deny it, you're not hurting anyone but yourself.


Evolution = a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations
Source = www.merriam-webster.com...

You are wrong! I have never heard of a single type of animal evolving into another type of animal in recorded history. Evolution does NOT happen. Name one JUST ONE example of a type NOT SPECIES of animal evolving into another type of animal.

If you don't know the difference between SPECIES and TYPE or family. Then you need more help then I can offer.

It's funny, all you have to do is actually define terms and you find that the argument never even gets beyond that. Based on your own secular definitions evolution is bunk.



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by trueperspective



Stereologist =
I think that I would dispute that evolution is god. Evolution does not describe the origins of life. It does not describe the universe. Evolution and the theories as to why it happened describe the diversity of life. Due to its limited scope I'd hardly claim it fits definition "a". Nor would I attribute definition "b" to evolution since evolution is not a directed process. It is an observed result. Evolution is not a force. Evolution does not tend towards complexity.


Evolution = a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state
Source = www.merriam-webster.com...

You are wrong!



PieKeeper
There is no debate: Evolution occurs, end of story.

Go ahead and deny it, you're not hurting anyone but yourself.


Evolution = a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations
Source = www.merriam-webster.com...

You are wrong! I have never heard of a single type of animal evolving into another type of animal in recorded history. Evolution does NOT happen. Name one JUST ONE example of a type NOT SPECIES of animal evolving into another type of animal.

If you don't know the difference between SPECIES and TYPE or family. Then you need more help then I can offer.

It's funny, all you have to do is actually define terms and you find that the argument never even gets beyond that. Based on your own secular definitions evolution is bunk.


Phylum level evolution home.entouch.net...



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


Thanks for the info, BUT I'm not talking about the fossil record. I'm talking about recorded history. When in recorded history has an animal evolved into, OR even made progress towards evolving into another animal. It has never happened. Pointing to a fossil and telling me what happened isn't science as defined in the OP.



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 04:49 PM
link   


reply to post by trueperspective
 





b. a department of systemized knowledge as an object of study (the science of Theology)
So, first it must be noted that the "Science of Origins" is NOT science, based on definition "a." The creation of the universe will unfortunately never be observed nor can it be experimented on. (Unless science can create a WHOLE UNIVERSE and wait 14 BILLION years for evolution to be observed to its present state.)



We must allow evolution an infinite amount of time just to get started. Arthur Eddington.

I really don't think there could ever be enough time.




Yes of course I am a strong follower of Olodumare of the Yoruba religion


I think there was a Bugs Bunny cartoon once that went something like this.

Duh I know something you don't know. I know something you don't know.


[edit on 12-5-2010 by randyvs]



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 05:00 PM
link   
Science is a religion based on knowledge, and religion is a science based on ignorance



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 05:05 PM
link   
LISTEN HERE YALL--
Cristian religion is the most intellagent thing to beleeve cause people herd God speek to them and then they wrote the conversation of it all down and special people like are Pastor teeches it so he dont not teech science so science isnt smarter then religion and are Pastor tells us that religion is a FACT and proovable and science is just make-beleeve stuff by people who think they are smart and all.

[edit on 12-5-2010 by lemonfresh]



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by inforeal
Science is a religion based on knowledge, and religion is a science based on ignorance


Quite right. Religion is a science based on ignoring the stupidity of
evolution.

There are two things I know that go to infinity. The universe and the stupidity of man. I'm not completely sure about the universe.

Albert Einstien.

Go right ahead put your faith in man. What a joke.
Oil spill.

[edit on 12-5-2010 by randyvs]



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by trueperspective
 


So is the dictionary is wrong? No. You purposely picked a definition not pertaining to biological structures. Let's check the other definitions. Here's the one pertaining to biology is:

4 a : the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : phylogeny b : a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations; also : the process described by this theory


You are wrong!


You are wrong! I have never heard of a single type of animal evolving into another type of animal in recorded history.

Gotta love this restriction to a short period of time. Guess what you are wrong! The rapid speciation of Omiodes moths in Hawaii is in recorded time.

[edit on 12-5-2010 by stereologist]

[edit on 12-5-2010 by stereologist]



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by trueperspective
 


Your definition of science in the OP is wrong as was pointed out.



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 09:18 PM
link   
reply to post by inforeal
 


No, that is scientism and it's assumed knowledge. Science is a tool that deals with testable observable facts of which there are things that are neither directly observable or testable at our current abilities understanding. Scientism spuriously assumes that anything not observable or testable doesn't exist yet it tends to embrace cosmology. Which is funny.



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 03:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by trueperspective
reply to post by Maslo
 


Thanks for the info, BUT I'm not talking about the fossil record. I'm talking about recorded history. When in recorded history has an animal evolved into, OR even made progress towards evolving into another animal. It has never happened. Pointing to a fossil and telling me what happened isn't science as defined in the OP.


There were many, many cases in recorded history of animals making progress or evolving into another species.

www.talkorigins.org...

Pointing towards fossil evidence IS science. It is observation of evidence from the past. OPs definition clearly includes it.

If you are asking for examples of animals becoming completely changed (type) during the short time mankind has been systematically observing nature, then of course there arent any I know of. But that doesnt invalidate evolution, because evolution does not predict such a thing. Its like saying "Thery of gravity is wrong because I dont feel gravitationally attracted to the notebook in front of me".

[edit on 13-5-2010 by Maslo]



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 05:01 AM
link   
reply to post by trueperspective
 




Name one JUST ONE example of a type NOT SPECIES of animal evolving into another type of animal.


The word type is the issue here. In truth evolution does not support something spontaneously becoming another TYPE or KIND of animal in one evolutionary step. What Evolution does support is that over time one species can become another and then that species can evolve again, over time until the end result is something which is a different type but which still has some of the same characteristics. Think of birds and dinosaurs, Birds are pretty different from dinosaurs, they are a different TYPE of animal BUT they also have similarities to dinosaurs left over even after millions of years of evolution.

The old creationist standby of "WHERE IS THE CROCODUCK" doesn't even make sense and leaves anyone with a brain baffled (even most other Creationists
) Evolution does not permit things to become so fundamentally different as to not retain any traits of the ancestor species but over millions of years organisms can become different in many ways (but like I said they still retain the trace evidence of what they used to be).

[edit on 13-5-2010 by Titen-Sxull]

[edit on 13-5-2010 by Titen-Sxull]



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 07:59 PM
link   
Is there anyone on here with an understanding of evolution who is willing to actually discuss the process? There are some things that I would like to have explained without the inclusion of personal attacks.

So far, this thread is a snowball fight with both sides hiding in their forts. Anybody want to dispose of their weapons and meet outside in the middle? I'll even throw in the hot cocoa.



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by quisoa
 


That would be contrary to the reason most are here. All a fair amount of the individuals here are interested is discussing how right they think they are and how stupid they think their opponent are. To do what you propose would be the equivilent of admitting defeat in their eyes.. Aren't we a silly buncha monkeys?



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 08:49 AM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 



It is not a time restriction! It is called Science. Science itslef puts the RISTRICTION on something that CAN BE OBSERVED AND EXPERIMENTED ON.

If you can't do that then you BEYOND the realm of science. you restrict yourself!



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 09:19 AM
link   

It is not a time restriction! It is called Science. Science itslef puts the RISTRICTION on something that CAN BE OBSERVED AND EXPERIMENTED ON.

If you can't do that then you BEYOND the realm of science. you restrict yourself!


A false argument. You are the one that placed a time restriction on the evolution of a type species. Science does not make the claim that a person has to observe the event or that the event does not leave sufficient information behind to understand the event. That is your false claim. Any inferences made from the false claim are also false.

I noticed how you do not address the issue of the Omiodes moths.

What science can clearly demonstrate is evolution. Very large expanses of rock reveal ancient oceans without a single Osteichthyes fish in them. The geological evidence for many ancient oceans without a single Osteichthyes fish is overwhelming. There are large expanses of rock representing ancient seas without a single Chondrichthyes as well. Nor are there placoderms or Acanthodii.

The observation is simple. Once there were no placoderms, acanthodii, Chondrichthyes, or Osteichthyes. Now there are Chondrichthyes, or Osteichthyes. The other 2 types of fish-like animals came and went.

The evidence for evolution is clear.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join